2005 FBI UCR - Maryland Tied For #1 In Murder

Maryland has been #1 in robbery since at least 1995. The title is still intact. However, while Louisiana is still #1 in murder, Maryland is now so close to the Bayou State's murder rate that it's in essence a statistical dead heat (no pun intended).
:what:

The murder rate in LA is 9.95 per 100K.
The murder rate in MD is 9.86 per 100K.

5 fewer murders in LA, or 6 more murders in MD, and MD is truly #1.
:fire:

You've got Maryland, a gun-grabber state with a high murder rate, then you've got Massachusettes, another gun-grabber state, with a much lower murder rate. This proves nothing.

You've got Iowa, a pro-gun state vs. Texas a pro-gun state, and their rates are totally different. That proves nothing.

This is highly politically incorrect, but these stats, imo, have more to do with economics and race/minorities than they do with gun laws.

Just go down the list and be honest with yourself. Every state with a low murder rate also happens to be a lot less diverse, both racially and economically. And economics tie into the picture because poor people resort to violence a whole lot more. These states with super-low rates (under 2), as a whole, do not have massive inner-city urban cauldrons of violence. That's because they are probably a lot more gang-free. Less poverty, less gangs, less murder.

Most murders are not a result of peaceful gunowners. These figures include all murders. If two rival crackheads shoot eachother and one dies, they chalk up a murder for that state. That isn't a fair assessment to make pro/con when it comes to discussing the RKBA.

IN REALITY, we should immediately refrain from engaging in a debate based on crime stats. It is a flawed method for argumentation even when the data favors our cause. It concedes that gun-control or the RKBA is dependant or susceptable to interpretation or regulation by crime statistics. When you say "oh yeah, our state allows concealed carry and the murder rate is low"...what are you arguing? That when the murder rate goes up that concealed carry should be revoked? We shouldn't allow, in any way, shape, or form, for there to exist a single avenue by which one can imply that the RKBA is debatable.

The Second Amendment and the RKBA have nothing to do with crime. Nothing to do with violence. I don't care if 1,000 die of gun violence tomorrow. My Rights are not subject to other people's abuses and misuses. No matter how extreme. Rights are inherent, they are God-given (nature given if you're not into the God thing), and inalienable. No changes allowed. Period.

The truth is, SPEECH has killed more people in the 20th Century than guns ever did. It wasn't a gun that killed all the Jews during the Holocaust (nor was it Zyklon-B), it was an IDEA of racism and hate. And speech was used as a weapon to deliver these ideas to the masses.

Despite massive abuses and serious consequences of free-speech in America, which has also led to many countless deaths - no one considers restricting free speech. Yet, guns are a target because they are a physical object. This is the bias we face.

All that being said, we need to start changing the way we think, talk and argue about the RKBA. Next time you face off with a gun-grabber, don't argue crime stats, just tell them straight up that Rights aren't negotiable. If they think you are a radical because of that - oh well. Tell them that if believing in inalienable Rights is radical, you're happy to be one. Tell them that the entire basis for their entire argument and belief system is that we should limit Rights based on statistics. Talk about a slippery-slope proposition.

If you just confront people with these arguments - the debate is over instantly, as a debate NEVER exists or forms. State your belief as a statement, not an argument. Foolish to even argue something that is an automatic, a given, and an unalienable Right.

Some of the founding fathers considered not including some of our Rights in the Constitution because they felt it was so absurd to even have to state what is automatically accepted to be a God-given Right that no government can touch. Fortunately, others were more astute to the reality and corruptability of government and fought for a guarantee in writing.

American By Blood

September 28, 2006, 02:41 AM

Building on what Don't Tread On Me said...

Baltimore is responsible for a fair chunk of MD's out of control murder rate. We average close to a murder a day. People virtually sport hunt each other here. Because of that, our local free weekly (you know, the papers that most cities have these days that are geared toward a younger, hipper, more liberal readership) has a column called "Murder Ink" where they give a brief description of every murder that took place in the city over the course of week.

When "Murder Ink" first started they gave brief biographical sketches of each victim and, where possible, of the related perpetrator. This was ended after a few months because almost all of the "victims" were young black males involved in the drug trade who were killed by their co-workers. That this became public knowledge sent the poverty pimps, race hustlers, and fear mongers into a tizzy and the City Paper was accused of "victim blaming" and worse. The paper subsequently stopped with the biographical sketches and wrote a blurb about why in the column of the week the decision was made.

After this, many readers sent letters to the City Paper criticizing their lack of resolve and arguing that the column actually made them feel safer. The consensus seemed to be that people still understood that life in Baltimore means being under constant threat of rape, robbery, and random beating--but hey, at least it turns out that if you're white and not a drug dealer you're as unlikely to get killed as you would be in Omaha.

What these stats do not reflect is that many of MD's murders are "cost of doing business" killings and effect little more than property values.

I have no malicious intent in pointing this out. Rather, I think pretending that it's not happening (a la Bowling for Columbine) is the real problem.

American By Blood

September 28, 2006, 03:24 AM

"White" includes Hispanic in just about all government statistics pertaining to crime.

One of the only places they are separated is in hate crimes reporting. The form the FBI uses to write up a hate crime has Hispanic as a distinct victim class but not as its own perpetrator class.

tellner

September 28, 2006, 03:51 AM

Don't Tread On Me is right. The murder rate is the result of many things of which economics, community cohesion, social services, and many other things are far more important than gun laws.

Don't Tread On Me

September 28, 2006, 03:54 AM

Nice figures, but guess which population is larger? That would make which group a higher % of murder victims?

Anyway, the great irony is - the people who NEED firearms the most, those very same economically depressed minorities and non-minorities living in the inner-city are the #1 targets of gun controllers.

These people have been physically disarmed by massive sweep and clears. Propagandized to death by gun-grabbing organizations or "civil rights" groups. Local police has been completely and totally disrespectful of their RKBA to the point where they act and operate as if the RKBA doesn't exist for "these people"...and national gun grabbers tried to ban firearms that were budget priced (junk guns) and create licensing fees and ammo taxes so that the lower-class would not be able to afford a means of self defense. These people are prisoners in their own communities to massive murders, violence, robberies -- and most of them don't believe (because that's what they've been taught) that they have a right to defend themselves.

That my friends, is the true face of gun-control. Very disgusting.

I didn't mean this to be a thread hijack, but saying Maryland is #1 in murder, and trying to blame that on guncontrol doesn't work. There are worse gun-grabber states with low murder rates. The problem is complex.

I guess it does work from a quick sound-bite style perspective. To use this data like the gun-grabbers by shaping it into the most useful way for our agenda. If arguing with poorly-informed people on the subject, it can be quite effective. Still contradicts the RKBA, but will give you some initial gains in at the expense of further cementing the concept that rights are negotiable.

Spot77

September 28, 2006, 07:55 AM

I didn't mean this to be a thread hijack, but saying Maryland is #1 in murder, and trying to blame that on guncontrol doesn't work. There are worse gun-grabber states with low murder rates. The problem is complex.

That's EXACTLY the point. It doesn't work. Md has some of the strictes gun control laws and they HAVE NO EFFECT on crime. None. Nada. Zip.

Those laws do however prevent me from taking my kids to the range as often as I'd like because if one of them needs a pee break on the way home, I become a felon.

Helmetcase

September 28, 2006, 09:47 AM

Amen Spot--DTOM, the point we need to be making to people on the fence is that you can have a high crime area with guns or a high crime area with gun control, and you can have a low crime area with guns or a low crime area with gun control...but in any event, there's no indication that gun control laws lead to states with less violence.

It's precisely because crime is a function of economic conditions, quality of education, family structure, and other socioeconomic conditions and NOT merely the presence of guns that we need to stand fast against the "guns cause crime" thinking.

Manedwolf

September 28, 2006, 09:51 AM

There's other factors to look at, too.

Supposedly legally "gun-free" Boston passed the average of a shooting every day not long ago. All criminals, all illegal guns.

kludge

September 28, 2006, 10:16 AM

The other thing to look at is that D.C. doen't have a 'rural' population to bring the average down.

If you just compared cities, the order might be different. At that point you could then begin to compare things like poverty/gang/crime/gun law statistics.

ApexinM3

September 28, 2006, 10:16 AM

Any way we can incorporate these statistics in with the CCW Seminar in MD on the 14th? Or is that the kind of thing we are trying to avoid?

Maybe I missed it, but this just shows homicides, not gun related deaths, right? If so, it proves the theory that the police cannot protect us.

K-Romulus

September 28, 2006, 10:21 AM

You know those "only use is to hunt people" bullet hoses are the problem, committing crimes once every other day in MD!!!:eek:

And don't forget about the "shotgun/rifle loophole" that allows people to buy a bolt action rifle from their buddy without first going through that important state police registration paperwork!! Why, in fact there is a noble MoCo state Senate candidate from Takoma Park named Jamie Raskin, guaranteed to be elected soon, who is pledging to fix that huge contribution to gun violence (http://www.gazette.net/stories/080106/montele145912_31912.shtml) .:eek:

Desk Jockey

September 28, 2006, 11:01 AM

"Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is critical"

"Statistics is the science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures."

"There are lies, d@mned lies, and statistics."

"Statistics means never having to say you are certain."

kengrubb

September 28, 2006, 12:58 PM

You've got Maryland, a gun-grabber state with a high murder rate, then you've got Massachusetts, another gun-grabber state, with a much lower murder rate. This proves nothing.
You are very much correct in that there's always more to the story than just statistics. Maryland is a Mid-Atlantic state and Massachusetts is a New England state. New England is a very low crime area whereas the Mid-Atlantic is generally a higher crime area. Within New England, however, Massachusetts is a relatively high crime state.

Trends are often much more important. They can be used to show some legislators that perhaps it's time to start listening and give Shall Issue Carry a try?

You've got Iowa, a pro-gun state vs. Texas a pro-gun state, and their rates are totally different. That proves nothing.
Same as above. Texas is a Southern state, and the Southern states from the Atlantic to the Pacific tend to be the most violent. Back to trends.

the people who NEED firearms the most, those very same economically depressed minorities and non-minorities living in the inner-city are the #1 targets of gun controllers.
Even in Shall Issue states, minorities and women are very underrepresented among CCW licensees. That's because few apply. Why? Well, that's a discussion that could fill several pages in here.

I guess it does work from a quick sound-bite style perspective.
That is unfortunately often what is most important. Intellectual discussion with legislators, the media, and committed antigunners generally doesn't work.

kengrubb

September 28, 2006, 01:01 PM

'K, I may not be reading this right, but Washington D.C. gets a 35.4!?!?
Believe it or not, the D.C. murder is down from what it was in 2003.